Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairment is often reported among COVID-19 ICU survivors, and little is known about their long-term outcomes. We evaluated the HRQoL trajectories between 3 months and 1 year after ICU discharge, the factors influencing these trajectories and the presence of clusters of HRQoL profiles in a population of COVID-19 patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Moreover, pathophysiological correlations of residual dyspnea were tested. Methods: We followed up 178 survivors from 16 Italian ICUs up to one year after ICU discharge. HRQoL was investigated through the 15D instrument. Available pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and chest CT scans at 1 year were also collected. A linear mixed-effects model was adopted to identify factors associated with different HRQoL trajectories and a two-step cluster analysis was performed to identify HRQoL clusters. Results: We found that HRQoL increased during the study period, especially for the significant increase of the physical dimensions, while the mental dimensions and dyspnea remained substantially unchanged. Four main 15D profiles were identified: full recovery (47.2%), bad recovery (5.1%) and two partial recovery clusters with mostly physical (9.6%) or mental (38.2%) dimensions affected. Gender, duration of IMV and number of comorbidities significantly influenced HRQoL trajectories. Persistent dyspnea was reported in 58.4% of patients, and weakly, but significantly, correlated with both DLCO and length of IMV. Conclusions: HRQoL impairment is frequent 1 year after ICU discharge, and the lowest recovery is found in the mental dimensions. Persistent dyspnea is often reported and weakly correlated with PFTs alterations. Trial registration: NCT04411459. 15D score 3 months -mean ± SD 0.857 ± 0.133 0.927 ± 0.061 0.800 ± 0.135 0.853 ± 0.114 0.637 ± 0.204 < 0.001 15D score 1 year -mean ± SD 0.880 ± 0.115 0.964 ± 0.033 0.820 ± 0.068 0.866 ± 0.088 0.572 ± 0.112 < 0.001 Mobility -mean ± SD 0.876 ± 0.207 0.963 ± 0.104 0.828 ± 0.191 0.901 ± 0.166 0.375 ± 0.298 < 0.001 Vision -mean ± SD 0.953 ± 0.119 0.992 ± 0.040 0.942 ± 0.108 0.949 ± 0.094 0.681 ± 0.280 < 0.001 Hearing -mean ± SD 0.968 ± 0.098 1.000 ± 0.000 1.000 ± 0.000 0.745 ± 0.135 0.857 ± 0.192 < 0.001 Breathing -mean ± SD 0.746 ± 0.238 0.879 ± 0.154 0.620 ± 0.227 0.753 ± 0.223 0.438 ± 0.238 < 0.001 Sleeping -mean ± SD 0.838 ± 0.238 0.940 ± 0.135 0.716 ± 0.274 0.929 ± 0.142 0.632 ± 0.312 < 0.001 Eating -mean ± SD 0.979 ± 0.102 1.000 ± 0.000 1 .000 ± 0.000 1.000 ± 0.000 0.587 ± 0.221 < 0.001 Speech -mean ± SD 0.980 ± 0.090 0.996 ± 0.032 0.996 ± 0.036 0.948 ± 0.117 0.777 ± 0.276 < 0.001 Excretion -mean ± SD 0.974 ± 0.110 1.000 ± 0.000 1.000 ± 0.000 0.872 ± 0.191 0.720 ± 0.292
Obese subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk of requiring critical care (1), suggesting that excess body fat associates with greater disease severity. BMI does not discriminate between fat and lean body mass and poorly reflects fat distribution. Cardiometabolic diseases and increased systemic inflammation, two conditions associated with visceral adiposity, are also linked to COVID-19 severity and fatality (1,2). The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between abdominal fat distribution and COVID-19 severity. We hypothesized that excess visceral adipose tissue (VAT), as identified by an increased VAT to subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) ratio (VAT/SAT), is associated with COVID-19 severity, as defined by intensive care unit (ICU) admission. This was a single-center cohort study of 441 patients consecutively admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) of the
Background A large proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop severe respiratory failure requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and about 80% of them need mechanical ventilation (MV). These patients show great complexity due to multiple organ involvement and a dynamic evolution over time; moreover, few information is available about the risk factors that may contribute to increase the time course of mechanical ventilation. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the risk factors associated with the inability to liberate COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation. Due to the complex evolution of the disease, we analyzed both pulmonary variables and occurrence of non-pulmonary complications during mechanical ventilation. The secondary objective of this study was the evaluation of risk factors for ICU mortality. Methods This multicenter prospective observational study enrolled 391 patients from fifteen COVID-19 dedicated Italian ICUs which underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia. Clinical and laboratory data, ventilator parameters, occurrence of organ dysfunction, and outcome were recorded. The primary outcome measure was 28 days ventilator-free days and the liberation from MV at 28 days was studied by performing a competing risks regression model on data, according to the method of Fine and Gray; the event death was considered as a competing risk. Results Liberation from mechanical ventilation was achieved in 53.2% of the patients (208/391). Competing risks analysis, considering death as a competing event, demonstrated a decreased sub-hazard ratio for liberation from mechanical ventilation (MV) with increasing age and SOFA score at ICU admission, low values of PaO2/FiO2 ratio during the first 5 days of MV, respiratory system compliance (CRS) lower than 40 mL/cmH2O during the first 5 days of MV, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and cardiovascular complications. ICU mortality during the observation period was 36.1% (141/391). Similar results were obtained by the multivariate logistic regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable. Conclusions Age, SOFA score at ICU admission, CRS, PaO2/FiO2, renal and cardiovascular complications, and late-onset VAP were all independent risk factors for prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. Trial registration NCT04411459
Background: Current data have shown that lung ultrasound (LUS) may be useful in the detection of interstitial lung disease (ILD) by the evaluation of B-lines, the sonographic marker of pulmonary interstitial syndrome. Nevertheless, no prospective study has compared LUS to chest X-ray (CXR) for ILD assessment, and there is no general agreement on the specific echographic diagnostic criteria for defining ILD. Objectives: The aims of this study were (1) to compare the accuracy of LUS and CXR in the detection of ILD using high-resolution CT (HRCT) as the gold standard and (2) to compare the accuracy of different echographic diagnostic criteria for ILD diagnosis. Methods: LUS was performed on 104 patients undergoing HRCT for suspected ILD. In 49 patients, a CXR scan performed within 3 months of HRCT was analyzed. ILD was defined as the presence of ≥5 B-lines in ≥3 chest areas. A total B-line score (TBLS) was also calculated, as in previous studies. The observers evaluating LUS and CXR were blinded to the HRCT results and clinical data. Results: On HRCT, ILD was assessed in 50 patients. CXR was specific (91%; 95% CI 80-100) but not sensitive (48%; 95% CI 28-67). Conversely, LUS showed high sensitivity (92%; 95% CI 84-99) and low specificity (79%; 95% CI 69-90). Using a TBLS, sensitivity did not change, while specificity decreased. Conclusions: LUS could be a sensitive tool for ILD detection. CXR and LUS have different but complementary features, and their combined use could reduce the need for HRCT. The use of different diagnostic criteria for defining ILD does not affect sensitivity but influences specificity.
Chest CT can be considered a screening test in the assessment of patients with PAH of unknown aetiology, and the radiologist can help the clinician to identify patients with CT findings that make PVOD highly probable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.